Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari signed
a sweeping Consitutional amendment into law yesterday, transferring much
of his own power to the nation's traditionally weak Parliament. The
amendment, by decentralizing the government and strengthening the
Parliament as well provincial governments, stands to bring much-needed
stability and openness to a state long plagued by autocracy and by the
military's heavy influence. Pakistan's secretive and self-interested
military -- long permiated by Islamist ideology and (until
recently) driven by an agenda of dominating neighboring Afghanistan
and Kashmir via insurgent proxies -- has, as a rule either coerced the
president or replaced him outright, as in the military coup that
established the presidency of General Pervez Musharraf. As Pakistan's
president and military have wrestled for power, they have dragged the
state through periods of instability and corruption that has
exaccerbated poverty and, at times, provoked domestic terror. Pakistan's
volatility and political infighting also make it far more difficult for
foreign diplomats to influence the state. As a lead player in the
Afghanistan and Kashmir conflicts, Pakistan's international cooperation
is essential. Today's amendment could bring new stability to the
country, improving Pakistan's internal governance and ultimately aiding
U.S. interests.

As authority shifts from the president to the
Parliament, the military will likely have a far harder time exerting
influence. Just how does the military pressure Pakistan's civilian
leaders? A recent United Nations report
on the 2007 assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto accuses the
military, with which Bhutto was on bad terms, of failing to properly
protect her or investigate her death. The report does not name any
suspects in her death but does, as the New York Times puts
it, make "repeated references to the unchecked power of the military
and its intelligence wing." That wing, the Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI), has long backed insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Kashmir, with the civilian government in Islamabad too afraid to do anything about it. President Zardari, Bhutto's widower, may finally be bringing accountability to the ISI by empowering Parliament to do what he could not.

Part of the reason why Pakistan's military has
been effective at coercing the president and prime minister is that they
are just two individuals. But the Parliament's sheer volume -- it has
436 members -- means the military now has hundreds of legislators it
must lobby. With the Pakistani leadership now more decentralized and
dispersed, the military will find fewer pressure points, and its
influence may wane. U.S. policy in Pakistan since the Clinton
administration has focused on convincing the military to reduce its
reliance on insurgent proxies, including some Taliban leaders. Without a
Pakistani civilian government that would join in pressuring the
military, U.S. entreaties have been largely ineffective. There's no
guarantee that the Parliament will take our side, but they will be freer
to make that choice than any Pakistani president has ever been.

Just as Parliament will be less susceptible than a president to
pressure from the military, however, so too will it be less susceptible
to pressure from the U.S. government. In July 1999, when Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif invaded the Kargil district of Kashmir and put his country
on the brink of nuclear war with India, President Clinton resolved the
crisis by demanding Sharif fly to Washington, lecturing him to the point
of humiliation, and convincing him to withdraw from Kashmir. Clinton's
performance ended what could have been an international crisis. But were
such an invasion initiated by the now-strengthened Parliament, would
the U.S. president be able to personally harangue all 436 members into
securing a reversal? A Parliamentary resolution for something as rash as
invading Kashmir seems unlikely, due to the body's simple need for
lengthy debates and floor deliberations. But President Obama will need
Pakistan's cooperation on many issues as he sustains combat operations
in Afghanistan and opens trade with India. With its decision making now
more dispersed, Obama will need more than simple lobbying to influence
Pakistan's behavior.

If Zardari's amendment can truly build a
stronger and more independent Parliament, the U.S. will enjoy a Pakistan
that is more stable, more predictable, and less prone to the military's
meddling. But the U.S. meddling in Pakistan will also be less
effective. Rather than simply pushing Pakistan to meet our demands on
issues like Kashmir or Afghanistan, the U.S. will have to align its
interests with those of a majority of the Pakistani Parliament. If its
members are at all fair and representative, the welfare of Pakistan's
170 million people will no longer be an afterthought in U.S. diplomacy.
But the U.S. is already beginning to emphasize long-term solutions to
Pakistan's problems. In the past, Presidents Clinton and Bush pleaded
with the Pakistani leadership to pursue insurgents in the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The Obama administration, addressing
the whole country rather than just its top officials, is attempting to
remedy the conditions that led to the insurgency in the first place.
Special Envoy to the region Richard Holbrooke noted
yesterday that the U.S. is emphasizing water and energy development in
the FATA, which could alleviate the poverty and resentment that
terrorist groups feed on there. This project would take years or decades
to make a difference. But with political power diffused across a much
more broadly accountable institution than the Pakistani presidency, such
gradual, large-scale projects may be our best bet at changing the
country. In the long-term, that could be better for Pakistan and for our
interests in the region.

Image: Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari speaking at the United Nations General Assembly about the assassination of his wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, whose photo he carried onto the lectern. Michael Nagle/Getty Images

Most Popular

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why did Trump’s choice for national-security advisor perform so well in the war on terror, only to find himself forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency?

How does a man like retired Lieutenant General Mike Flynn—who spent his life sifting through information and parsing reports, separating rumor and innuendo from actionable intelligence—come to promote conspiracy theories on social media?

Perhaps it’s less Flynn who’s changed than that the circumstances in which he finds himself—thriving in some roles, and flailing in others.

In diagnostic testing, there’s a basic distinction between sensitivity, or the ability to identify positive results, and specificity, the ability to exclude negative ones. A test with high specificity may avoid generating false positives, but at the price of missing many diagnoses. One with high sensitivity may catch those tricky diagnoses, but also generate false positives along the way. Some people seem to sift through information with high sensitivity, but low specificity—spotting connections that others can’t, and perhaps some that aren’t even there.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.

Trinidad has the highest rate of Islamic State recruitment in the Western hemisphere. How did this happen?

This summer, the so-called Islamic State published issue 15 of its online magazine Dabiq. In what has become a standard feature, it ran an interview with an ISIS foreign fighter. “When I was around twenty years old I would come to accept the religion of truth, Islam,” said Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi, recalling how he had turned away from the Christian faith he was born into.

At-Trinidadi, as his nom de guerre suggests, is from the Caribbean island of Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), a country more readily associated with calypso and carnival than the “caliphate.” Asked if he had a message for “the Muslims of Trinidad,” he condemned his co-religionists at home for remaining in “a place where you have no honor and are forced to live in humiliation, subjugated by the disbelievers.” More chillingly, he urged Muslims in T&T to wage jihad against their fellow citizens: “Terrify the disbelievers in their own homes and make their streets run with their blood.”

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

A new survey suggests many might prefer a kind of multipolar Washington, with three distinct orbits of power checking each other.

Does Donald Trump have a mandate?

Though last month’s election provided Trump and his fellow Republicans unified control of the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate for the first time since 2006, the latest Allstate/Atlantic Media Heartland Monitor Poll shows the country remains closely split on many of the key policy challenges facing the incoming administration—and sharply divided on whether they trust the next president to take the lead in responding to them.

In addition, on several important choices facing the new administration and Congress, the survey found that respondents who voted for Trump supported a position that was rejected by the majority of adults overall. That contrast may simultaneously encourage Trump to press forward on an agenda that energizes his coalition, while emboldening congressional Democrats to resist him.